Every time you get the urge to use that tag, think of all the idiocy in the world - Sarah Palin might become president, damages for copying a CD are in the $100Ks, the patent system, the supreme court, credit default swaps, bankers not in jail, etc.
This story is nothing more than an "isolatedpocketofcommonsense"
"series of tubes" is just a funny sound bite. The real point is that this imbecile was opposing net neutrality and this was his justification:
"There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.
But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.
Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
I just the other day got, an internet [i.e. email] was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.
We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discriminate against those people [...]
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [?]
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?
Do you know why?
Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.
[...]
Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.
Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.
It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.
The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a violation of net neutrality that hits you and me."
Well in absolute terms it might be "10:04 pm", but really it's just whatever time of day that all your usual distractions are gone and you've forgotten for a moment what a boring life you lead, but you're not tired enough to sleep yet. Inspiration can only strike when you're energized and your mind is clear and receptive.
Far too few people appreciate what a toll the 9-5 shcedule takes on one's creativity. If you ever get a couple months off work/school for any reason, try sleeping only when you're tired and eating only when you're hungry. I did this for six months straight one time, and although ultimately I was exhausted, it was the most creative and rewarding period in my life. It felt absolutely bizarre to be rotating around the clock on a schedule of 20 hours awake followed by 8 hours of sleep, but man did I get a lot of stuff done! Now I'm on powerful sedatives so I can hold down a "normal" existence, stay out of jail/hopsital etc... but what fun I had back in the day.:)
Something like ZFS immediately comes to mind... but is there some generally accepted definition of what makes a file system "next generation"? TFA doesn't say, and I hate to diminish anyone's efforts here, but the new features in ext4 (according to wikipedia) aren't much to write home about: higher precision time stamps, larger volumes, larger directories, faster fscking. These may be worthy accomplishments but they are incremental improvements, not anything new. Or did I miss something?
But you have to admit it's an intriguing suggestion. I have for a long time believed that film, TV, and literature serve a similar purpose for society as a whole as dreams to for the individual, so it makes perfect sense to me that one should reflect the other. Our own dreams are a mechanism for us to sort out our experiences of the prior day, to test hypothetical scenarios, and to act out our wishes and impulses that we might not be able to respond to because of law or social mores.
The media clearly serves some of these functions for the "collective conscious" as well. It entertains and informs us, and just like our own dreams it is rich in symbolism, subtle messages, and parallel plots. It is far less limited than the "real world" in what it can express, such as plots which may explore illegal or immoral acts, and special effects or animation which allow these stories defy the limits of the physics. Perhaps just as video and literature collectively is the product of many different minds coming up with a rich interconnected web of ideas, so do our own dreams serve as a mechanism for different corners of our conscious to share their information and knit it together.
Yes, I'm well aware there are all kinds of clumsy bolt-on solutions with dongles hanging off the side or little protruding antennas. What was implied in my suggestion would be a fully integrated radio with no visible antenna, built-in software support, and an easy way to add the Macbook to my existing iPhone plan.
One thing I'm surprised they did not announce (yet?) is a 3g wireless interface. As a satisfied iPhone+Macbook user already, that would be the only thing that might be compelling enough to get me to upgrade sooner.
The *officially stated* purpose of this action is boosting MS share values. But they are almost completely going to deplete their entire cash reserve to buy back shares. From now on, they'll use debt -- bonds -- to finance expansion and development.
Perhaps MSFT sees its operating income as being sufficient to cover its anticipated capital needs without having to dip into its reserves. In any case, typically those bought-back shares go into a treasury where they remain liquid and among of the total pool of shares outstanding. If they need cash later, they could simply sell the shares back to the public on the open market at a (hopefully higher) price. I.e. it is easier than issuing new shares. Your take on the macroeconomics is interesting, but I think Microsoft's strategy may be simpler than that.
How would it tell my Civic from the millions of other Civics?
Obviously the system would have a degree of certainty that is dependent on the number of cars on the road, the uniqueness of the car in question, the number of sensors, etc.
The key premise is that cars don't just randomly appear and disappear from the road. They pass over sensors in a predictable sequence. You would use all kinds of heuristics. For example, you might predict when a given car should pass the next sensor, and then if you see that same signature at around the expected time, you can be pretty sure it was the same car. Correlate that with additional data about the cars nearby it and you can increase the degree of certainty. It's not simple, but it's feasible.
The coils of wire embedded in the pavement, which are used to monitor freeway traffic and to control traffic lights, could detect the type of car that is passing over by the waveform it produces at the sensor. With some clever signal processing you could distinguish roughly the shape and size of the vehicle.
These sensors are everywhere - you might pass a hundred of them in a day. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to then see that if you could gather data from enough of these sensors, you could track a particular vehicle over the course of many miles. Combine this data with the camera images and you can also identify that vehicle.
The thing is, the language itself was not the most offensive part of this.
What is most offensive is the way these bastards write these absurdly one-sided "agreements", assuming the benefit that if anything is unenforceable it will only selectively be struck, and just pass off their standard shit with every single product assuming nobody will ever read it.
Good thing we have the internets to call them on it this time, but shame on them for doing it in the first place. And not just google, but damn near every tech company. The only reason they fixed it was because the high profile of the product. It's still evil.
The recall relates to a problem with wiring near the computer's hinge, which could short-circuit and overheat in certain circumstances, perhaps burning the user.
That sounds like a design defect, not a manufacturing defect.
You're talking out your a**. At least the OP has someone that they referred to. Who are your sources? Wires don't get congested? You haven't played much with electricity, have you?
So I'd be more credible if I told you that my mom and dad told me so?
A wire has a given amount of current that can flow through it before it melts. Take a thin wire and connect it to the + and - terminals on your car battery (use thick leather gloves so you don't get burned) and see what happens when you stuff too much power down a wire.
Thank you, captain obvious. Now consider you have a battery (fossil fuel) at point A powering a load (a house, for example) at point B. What happens when you add another battery in parallel (say a solar panel on the roof of said house) also at point B. What happens to the current between points A and B? Hint: it does not increase...
This is what is mean when we talk about a "grid interactive" energy source. They provide power into the grid when they can, otherwise they draw whatever the difference is between the load and what they can generate. This arrangement alleviates load on the distribution system when said power source is on the same side of the long transmission line as the power consumers, and they don't have to be at exact same location either. The fact that power sources such as wind and solar need not be concentrated at one location like a power plant, but can be sprinkled geographically close to consumers of power, is a huge advantage if properly exploited.
Obviously, there are also less desirable opportunities, as I acknowledged, where the source is not close the load, like trying to put a wind farm in the middle of nowhere. In those cases green energy would not be economical yet, until we figure out cheaper distribution or the price of fossil fuel rises some more.
Now, tell me more about what it means for a wire to be "congested".
We can have all of the solar, wind, water and nuclear power in the world but it doesn't mean a thing if it can't be easily transferred from the places it can be generated to places where it's needed.
Why do you assert it needs to be transferred long distances? We already have an infrastructure that can provide 24x7 power everywhere, from fossil fuel and nuclear plants. We don't have to throw that away or duplicate that in order to add green energy into the mix. Those renewable sources produce relatively small amounts of power, at varying times of the day, at varying locations. That doesn't mean they can't interact with the grid, providing power where they can and actually alleviating the load on long distance lines by effectively reducing the power drawn at the periphery of the grid. Indeed, there is _less_ power lost in transmission when they're closer to the load. And TFA is full of shit - wires don't get "congested".
Yes there is "trapped" energy in places where, for example, there is lots of sunlight hitting open land but no people nearby to consume it. We can't effectively tap those resources yet. That doesn't support your point whatsoever, and it's certainly nothing to be "screaming about".
I suspect your parents who work at the local power company are simply regurgitating the company PR line, and perhaps you should do your own research and exercise some critical thought in forming your own opinions.
The original objective in bringing the lawsuits was to uncover the criminal behavior by the Bush administration so that they could be held accountable for it. Suing the telcos was the only way to force the documents into the open.
How is that not all the more reason to proceed with the lawsuits?
But McCain's stated policies on wiretapping, the Patriot Act and other policies that undermine privacy and civil liberties are a seamless continuation on the current administration's policies.
And what of Obama's support for illegal wiretapping indemnity?!?
Possibly, but real-time video streaming only demands a limited amount of bandwidth (2 Mbps or so). It would not get throttled like an ordinary download, which consumes as much bandwidth as it can.
Comcast's problem has got me thinking, has anyone implemented a QOS mechanism that works like *nix CPU time allocation? In simple terms that's where a task's priority is determined as an inverse function of the amount of CPU time it wants. It seems to me the same thing should work just fine for bandwidth allocation. You just let interactive connections have as much as they want, and the continuous hogs get whatever is left - but you do this in a protocol-agnostic way that is based solely on demand.
But: this only would be appropriate if your goal is to deliver maximal performance under full link utilization. I don't know if this is a real problem for the cable providers - I doubt if last-mile congestion is as big an issue as people think. Probably they are more concerned about reducing their total cost for bandwidth to the internet. In that case the strategy of temporarily throttling the hogs seems reasonable and fair because it is protocol-agnostic, but ONLY if the specifics of this mechanism are disclosed to the customer, and this service is NOT advertised as "unlimited".
... good sir, to expend your precious electro-bits so as to share those TWO WHOLE EMAILS with your loyal readers. I look forward to future installments of these tomes.
Slashdot Mirror
Every time you get the urge to use that tag, think of all the idiocy in the world - Sarah Palin might become president, damages for copying a CD are in the $100Ks, the patent system, the supreme court, credit default swaps, bankers not in jail, etc.
This story is nothing more than an "isolatedpocketofcommonsense"
"series of tubes" is just a funny sound bite. The real point is that this imbecile was opposing net neutrality and this was his justification:
"There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.
But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.
Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
I just the other day got, an internet [i.e. email] was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.
We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discriminate against those people [...]
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [?]
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?
Do you know why?
Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.
[...]
Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.
Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.
It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.
The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a violation of net neutrality that hits you and me."
for his own rape kit?
Was this moderated Insightful out of irony (I do that all the time when I have the points) or did I miss the joke?
Please do not mod this ironically, because I'm already confused. Thanks.
Well in absolute terms it might be "10:04 pm", but really it's just whatever time of day that all your usual distractions are gone and you've forgotten for a moment what a boring life you lead, but you're not tired enough to sleep yet. Inspiration can only strike when you're energized and your mind is clear and receptive. Far too few people appreciate what a toll the 9-5 shcedule takes on one's creativity. If you ever get a couple months off work/school for any reason, try sleeping only when you're tired and eating only when you're hungry. I did this for six months straight one time, and although ultimately I was exhausted, it was the most creative and rewarding period in my life. It felt absolutely bizarre to be rotating around the clock on a schedule of 20 hours awake followed by 8 hours of sleep, but man did I get a lot of stuff done! Now I'm on powerful sedatives so I can hold down a "normal" existence, stay out of jail/hopsital etc... but what fun I had back in the day. :)
Something like ZFS immediately comes to mind... but is there some generally accepted definition of what makes a file system "next generation"? TFA doesn't say, and I hate to diminish anyone's efforts here, but the new features in ext4 (according to wikipedia) aren't much to write home about: higher precision time stamps, larger volumes, larger directories, faster fscking. These may be worthy accomplishments but they are incremental improvements, not anything new. Or did I miss something?
But you have to admit it's an intriguing suggestion. I have for a long time believed that film, TV, and literature serve a similar purpose for society as a whole as dreams to for the individual, so it makes perfect sense to me that one should reflect the other. Our own dreams are a mechanism for us to sort out our experiences of the prior day, to test hypothetical scenarios, and to act out our wishes and impulses that we might not be able to respond to because of law or social mores.
The media clearly serves some of these functions for the "collective conscious" as well. It entertains and informs us, and just like our own dreams it is rich in symbolism, subtle messages, and parallel plots. It is far less limited than the "real world" in what it can express, such as plots which may explore illegal or immoral acts, and special effects or animation which allow these stories defy the limits of the physics. Perhaps just as video and literature collectively is the product of many different minds coming up with a rich interconnected web of ideas, so do our own dreams serve as a mechanism for different corners of our conscious to share their information and knit it together.
You have ExpressCard, use it.
Yes, I'm well aware there are all kinds of clumsy bolt-on solutions with dongles hanging off the side or little protruding antennas. What was implied in my suggestion would be a fully integrated radio with no visible antenna, built-in software support, and an easy way to add the Macbook to my existing iPhone plan.
One thing I'm surprised they did not announce (yet?) is a 3g wireless interface. As a satisfied iPhone+Macbook user already, that would be the only thing that might be compelling enough to get me to upgrade sooner.
The *officially stated* purpose of this action is boosting MS share values. But they are almost completely going to deplete their entire cash reserve to buy back shares. From now on, they'll use debt -- bonds -- to finance expansion and development.
Perhaps MSFT sees its operating income as being sufficient to cover its anticipated capital needs without having to dip into its reserves. In any case, typically those bought-back shares go into a treasury where they remain liquid and among of the total pool of shares outstanding. If they need cash later, they could simply sell the shares back to the public on the open market at a (hopefully higher) price. I.e. it is easier than issuing new shares. Your take on the macroeconomics is interesting, but I think Microsoft's strategy may be simpler than that.
How would it tell my Civic from the millions of other Civics?
Obviously the system would have a degree of certainty that is dependent on the number of cars on the road, the uniqueness of the car in question, the number of sensors, etc.
The key premise is that cars don't just randomly appear and disappear from the road. They pass over sensors in a predictable sequence. You would use all kinds of heuristics. For example, you might predict when a given car should pass the next sensor, and then if you see that same signature at around the expected time, you can be pretty sure it was the same car. Correlate that with additional data about the cars nearby it and you can increase the degree of certainty. It's not simple, but it's feasible.
Here's some food for thought:
The coils of wire embedded in the pavement, which are used to monitor freeway traffic and to control traffic lights, could detect the type of car that is passing over by the waveform it produces at the sensor. With some clever signal processing you could distinguish roughly the shape and size of the vehicle.
These sensors are everywhere - you might pass a hundred of them in a day. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to then see that if you could gather data from enough of these sensors, you could track a particular vehicle over the course of many miles. Combine this data with the camera images and you can also identify that vehicle.
The thing is, the language itself was not the most offensive part of this.
What is most offensive is the way these bastards write these absurdly one-sided "agreements", assuming the benefit that if anything is unenforceable it will only selectively be struck, and just pass off their standard shit with every single product assuming nobody will ever read it.
Good thing we have the internets to call them on it this time, but shame on them for doing it in the first place. And not just google, but damn near every tech company. The only reason they fixed it was because the high profile of the product. It's still evil.
The recall relates to a problem with wiring near the computer's hinge, which could short-circuit and overheat in certain circumstances, perhaps burning the user.
That sounds like a design defect, not a manufacturing defect.
You're talking out your a**. At least the OP has someone that they referred to. Who are your sources? Wires don't get congested? You haven't played much with electricity, have you?
So I'd be more credible if I told you that my mom and dad told me so?
A wire has a given amount of current that can flow through it before it melts. Take a thin wire and connect it to the + and - terminals on your car battery (use thick leather gloves so you don't get burned) and see what happens when you stuff too much power down a wire.
Thank you, captain obvious. Now consider you have a battery (fossil fuel) at point A powering a load (a house, for example) at point B. What happens when you add another battery in parallel (say a solar panel on the roof of said house) also at point B. What happens to the current between points A and B? Hint: it does not increase...
This is what is mean when we talk about a "grid interactive" energy source. They provide power into the grid when they can, otherwise they draw whatever the difference is between the load and what they can generate. This arrangement alleviates load on the distribution system when said power source is on the same side of the long transmission line as the power consumers, and they don't have to be at exact same location either. The fact that power sources such as wind and solar need not be concentrated at one location like a power plant, but can be sprinkled geographically close to consumers of power, is a huge advantage if properly exploited.
Obviously, there are also less desirable opportunities, as I acknowledged, where the source is not close the load, like trying to put a wind farm in the middle of nowhere. In those cases green energy would not be economical yet, until we figure out cheaper distribution or the price of fossil fuel rises some more.
Now, tell me more about what it means for a wire to be "congested".
We can have all of the solar, wind, water and nuclear power in the world but it doesn't mean a thing if it can't be easily transferred from the places it can be generated to places where it's needed.
Why do you assert it needs to be transferred long distances? We already have an infrastructure that can provide 24x7 power everywhere, from fossil fuel and nuclear plants. We don't have to throw that away or duplicate that in order to add green energy into the mix. Those renewable sources produce relatively small amounts of power, at varying times of the day, at varying locations. That doesn't mean they can't interact with the grid, providing power where they can and actually alleviating the load on long distance lines by effectively reducing the power drawn at the periphery of the grid. Indeed, there is _less_ power lost in transmission when they're closer to the load. And TFA is full of shit - wires don't get "congested".
Yes there is "trapped" energy in places where, for example, there is lots of sunlight hitting open land but no people nearby to consume it. We can't effectively tap those resources yet. That doesn't support your point whatsoever, and it's certainly nothing to be "screaming about".
I suspect your parents who work at the local power company are simply regurgitating the company PR line, and perhaps you should do your own research and exercise some critical thought in forming your own opinions.
The original objective in bringing the lawsuits was to uncover the criminal behavior by the Bush administration so that they could be held accountable for it. Suing the telcos was the only way to force the documents into the open.
How is that not all the more reason to proceed with the lawsuits?
But McCain's stated policies on wiretapping, the Patriot Act and other policies that undermine privacy and civil liberties are a seamless continuation on the current administration's policies.
And what of Obama's support for illegal wiretapping indemnity?!?
We have Fiber in utah that gives you 50 Mbps UP and down for $80/mo.
unfortunately, there is nothing the mormons are allowed to download that can take advantage of it.
Or perhaps it's a salient point because of the disproportionate usage of Macs among photographers - i.e. the target audience for this tool.
Possibly, but real-time video streaming only demands a limited amount of bandwidth (2 Mbps or so). It would not get throttled like an ordinary download, which consumes as much bandwidth as it can.
Comcast's problem has got me thinking, has anyone implemented a QOS mechanism that works like *nix CPU time allocation? In simple terms that's where a task's priority is determined as an inverse function of the amount of CPU time it wants. It seems to me the same thing should work just fine for bandwidth allocation. You just let interactive connections have as much as they want, and the continuous hogs get whatever is left - but you do this in a protocol-agnostic way that is based solely on demand.
But: this only would be appropriate if your goal is to deliver maximal performance under full link utilization. I don't know if this is a real problem for the cable providers - I doubt if last-mile congestion is as big an issue as people think. Probably they are more concerned about reducing their total cost for bandwidth to the internet. In that case the strategy of temporarily throttling the hogs seems reasonable and fair because it is protocol-agnostic, but ONLY if the specifics of this mechanism are disclosed to the customer, and this service is NOT advertised as "unlimited".
... good sir, to expend your precious electro-bits so as to share those TWO WHOLE EMAILS with your loyal readers. I look forward to future installments of these tomes.
Now, wtf do you expect us to discuss?
Hey, can someone snurf me a baloney kargel? I looked on the stardiffel and didn't see any kegels for it.
You mean Cockney then?